Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rather than displaying your ignorance of the Social Security law, perhaps your time would be better spent studying said law than posting stuff like this. Also this couple might have adopted this child----as I did.
That was my thought.
For a long time we were foster-parents and we adopted. During that time period we were active in foster support groups and we knew older retirees who had adopted children. It happens.
Years later, when our son got married, his bride was one of those children. Her father was missing, and her mother had other problems. So her grandparents became her guardians and raised her. It happens.
MMoB, I DID realize the money came out of the SS fund, like the other payments you mentioned. And I DID know that people can receive benefits on an ex-spouse under certain conditions (e.g. length of marriage), but if the ex-spouse is still alive (as the OP's husband is) generally they can't do that until they too are retirement age (62 or older).
The OP's situation is different because they had a kid when the father was about to retire or was retired (not sure from the OP's posts). And I used the term "support" because the OP wrote that she spent the check on her son (as she is apparently "required" to) but is saving several hundred dollars a month. So yes, they're getting taxpayer money simply because the father was old when they had a kid, and they'll get it for at least the next 15 years (since the kid is now 3), even though the father could have kept working and the mother, who's only in her 40s, could work full-time as well. So taxpayers ARE helping to "support" the kid, even though he has 2 able-bodied married parents.
If you're aware that this is coming out of Social Security funds, why do you keep saying that taxpayers are helping to support the kid? Unless you're specifically referring to OASDI rather than income taxes, this doesn't make any sense. And even if you are referring to OASDI, it doesn't make a lot of sense because all payments out of OASDI are paid to recipients based on specific formulae.
If you disagree with the list of recipients and beneficiaries of these payments, that's one thing; but to keep insisting that taxpayers are supporting this one child is illogical unless your contention is that taxpayers are helping to support every single person who receives a check from Social Security.
If you're aware that this is coming out of Social Security funds, why do you keep saying that taxpayers are helping to support the kid? Unless you're specifically referring to OASDI rather than income taxes, this doesn't make any sense. And even if you are referring to OASDI, it doesn't make a lot of sense because all payments out of OASDI are paid to recipients based on specific formulae.
If you disagree with the list of recipients and beneficiaries of these payments, that's one thing; but to keep insisting that taxpayers are supporting this one child is illogical unless your contention is that taxpayers are helping to support every single person who receives a check from Social Security.
where do you think SS money comes from? a money orchard at the tax office?
I know someone who adopted their grandchild. Father is retired now and they collect ss on adopted grandchild. They put all this money into a college fund for him. I wonder how they get away with that?
Well, if the child was legally adopted, and the father paid SS taxes, they didn't get away with anything.
It's the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?
If you're aware that this is coming out of Social Security funds, why do you keep saying that taxpayers are helping to support the kid? Unless you're specifically referring to OASDI rather than income taxes, this doesn't make any sense. And even if you are referring to OASDI, it doesn't make a lot of sense because all payments out of OASDI are paid to recipients based on specific formulae.
If you disagree with the list of recipients and beneficiaries of these payments, that's one thing; but to keep insisting that taxpayers are supporting this one child is illogical unless your contention is that taxpayers are helping to support every single person who receives a check from Social Security.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shortel
where do you think SS money comes from? a money orchard at the tax office?
Which part of my post did you not understand? Did the OASDI acronym confuse you?
SS is not a tax. It is an insurance premium. Everyone is entitled to benefit from the same terms of the policy. However, I could say the same thing about all people that get a higher percentage of their SS paid in, as a benefit, compared to someone that pays in the max, and gets the lowest percentage. Regular insurance is not means tested, you get the same payment for the same premium regardless of income. But not SS. It was decided that it was fair and just for higher wage earners to support lower wage earners. But thats the way it is. I would have had no way to know if I would be a low wage earner or high wage earner in the future. I could have been disabled and needed SSDI to live. As has been said before, minor children of SS recipients are entitled to a SS based on the SS recipients record. Small record. Small check, large record, larger check (but smaller percentage). Every single SS statement has that spelled out under what you are entitled to, "If you receive retirement... benefits, your spouse and children may also be eligible" , so why is anyone surprised?
Taxes have nothing to do with it, except to the extent that when the government pays back its borrowed funds, it will likely have to raise taxes to everyone. But as also mentioned, the number of minor children getting a benefit is miniscule compared to say, disability payments, and isn't even a blip on general payments.
Last edited by Perryinva; 10-07-2016 at 02:51 PM..
I don't know that they "got away with anything."
And if the child is a minor, according to this thread we've learned that the father could be collecting the Soc Soc for his own minor child. So if the grands adopted the child, I've got a feeling something else was going on there, and I would hope they did the adoption for the child's benefit (for whatever reason.)
Oh yes, they are lovely people and love this boy. Father did not retire for a few years after the adoption and they had no idea about the SS and couldn't believe it when their friends said to check it out. If they hadn't adopted this child he would have ended up a ward of the state and they didn't want that since they loved him and had helped raise him since his birth. I understand when a parent dies, or when one becomes disabled, but retired? I'm just not sure it's necessary.
It's the law. Why is that so difficult to understand?[/quote]
What I didn't understand is if they have to fill out paperwork detailing how they use the money to benefit the child, how do they say it's all in a college fund? that's the part I didn't understand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
